Hillary-Backer AFSCME's Montana Mailer: Brought To You By "Your Union"
Not long ago we brought you word of a new mailer that Hillary-backer AFSCME had dropped in Indiana.
The piece didn't have the acronym "AFSCME" anywhere on it and didn't identify the source of the mailing beyond saying that it was "brought to you by your union." In theory this could be misleading if it fell into the hands of a member of a non-Hillary-backing union.
Now AFSCME has sent out another mailer in Montana which, similarly, says that it's "brought to you by your union." Click on the image below to enlarge:
In the case of the first mailer, an AFSCME official told us that this was a justifiable way of identifying the sender because it wasn't a mass mailing. The current, piece, however, was mailed out. So what gives?
AFSCME has now offered a clearer explanation for this practice. According to AFSCME director of public affairs Ethan Rome, the union has been sending out pieces like this in tandem with other unions supporting Hillary. The piece is identified in this way because it makes it possible to use the same mailer in different states, where there might be different unions AFSCME wants to collaborate with.
"It's from a number of unions that are united to support Hillary for president," Rome says. "The constellation of unions isn't the same in every state."
Rome added that the mailer is sent only to the homes of members of participating unions. "It's either mailed to people's homes or distributed at the workplace," he said. "I don't think it's very likely that it would make it to an unintended audience."
LOL!
"I don't think it's very likely that..."
Yeah right - I immediately don't believe you -
May 27, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It won't get into the wrong hands... as far as I know. At least that is what 'some people say' and all.
May 27, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know I at least am still getting mail for each of the previous two occupants at my address...
May 27, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me cynical, but this sounds like the political equivalent of "The check's in the mail. Really!"
May 27, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmm hmmm!
May 27, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so tedious.
May 27, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it is.
But I do think one more week and this is over.
I certainly hope so because it's tedious, it's exhausting and it's so stupid since it has no meaning - there's no way she can win.
But boy she is going to sow the seeds of doubt up one side and down the other - damn her for this.
May 27, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is so last week.
May 27, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the first go-around on this "mailer" thing I recall something about it being illegal not to identify who is paying for a mailer on the piece of paper. They got around that be claiming last time that is was NOT sent out via mail but hand deleivered. What gives with the legality of this document that was amiled without identifying who paid for the thing?
May 27, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point.
May 27, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, could you not have asked why the unions didn't list all of the organizations responsible for the mailer? (e.g. "this was brought to you by Unions X, Y, and Z) And if not, can you contact them for clarification? This still seems very, very misleading.
May 27, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
they did respond to this. their argument (I'm not supporting it necessarily) is that they want to run the same piece in different states, where different groups of unions would be behind it. If they listed all the unions behind it in one state, they couldn't use it in another state.
that's what they're saying.
May 27, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
They do know Montana is the last state, right? :)
Also, any idea if this is strictly legal/illegal? Most of us are clueless as to campaign laws regarding disclosure.
May 27, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget South Dakoata.. and Poland.. and denial.
May 27, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What "states" would those be Greg?
There are only two states left Montana and South Dakota. Three if you count denial as well.
May 27, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are trying to save money so their members won't hang them out for wasting their dues like this. As a long time union member and officer I find the whole thing a waste of union dues and a sleazy approach.
May 27, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, you've been affected by Hillaritis! And Obama's not a Muslim... as far as I know.
Why add the "necessarily"?
May 27, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary who?
May 27, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think they're referring to that pretty girl who played a girl pretending to be a boy cause she was in love with a girl in that movie.
May 27, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
i had no idea she was involved in politics.
May 27, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has any one of you folks ever heard of a candidate named Obama. I have heard rumors that he is supposed to be close to locking up the Democratic party nomination for president. Is that true, and if so, where can find some ongoing coverage of his campaign.
I have scrolled through the past ten threads on
TPM, but they are dedicated to McCain and Clinton.
Where can I find some coverage of Senator Obama's campaign. Thanks in advance.
May 27, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who dat?
May 27, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The New Republic of all places, had an interesting piece on Barack Obama by E.J. Donne on the reframing of patriotism in todays postings:
Who would have thunk that centerist milquetoast TNR would have something by Donne about the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, which has more perspective and thought than what TPM has been slinging in recent weeks?
May 27, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
edit:
Have any of you
May 27, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has Lamont Williams made any robocalls yet?
May 27, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conspiracies everywhere!
May 27, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did it go out with an insert championing how "your union is wasting your dues" on a campaign that's already over?
May 27, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be truth in advertising, if so.
May 27, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I understand, all mailings such as this are not paid for by union dues (against the law IIRC) but through the funding of whatever PAC(s) that union has set up which are not funded by dues.
May 27, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I belong to a union. If I received that mailer, you can bet I'd call my union leaders to demand an explanation.
This might be a way for certain unions to save money, but it's probably going to cause headaches for other unions, and, perhaps, a countermailing.
A Clinton campaign tactic backfiring. Wow.
May 27, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The piece is identified in this way because it makes it possible to use the same mailer in different states, where there might be different unions AFSCME wants to collaborate with.
"It's from a number of unions that are united to support Hillary for president," Rome says. "The constellation of
unions isn't the same in every state."
Not only plausible but a smart way to stretch a buck.
FWIW, I'm not a fan on a lot of unions tactics whether they're for Clinton or Obama. The whole evil intent aspect of this is a canard.
May 27, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you back a candidate that thinks Montana and SOuth Dakota's (not to mention my state of Oregon, and all the others that came after Super Tuesday) voters voices do not (or should not) count?
May 27, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better way for unions to stretch a buck would be to not throw their money down the drain in such a pointless, futile endeavor.
May 27, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks:
If you have had you fill of reading about Senator Obama's campaign, but can not get enough coverage of Clinton and McCain, then be sure to bookmark TPM on your browser.
TPM is now Clinton and McCain all the time. Guaranteed to be 99.9% Obama free. Bookmark it, if you are watching your Obama diet.
May 27, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about when someone belongs to more than one union? This is not that terribly uncommon. My father is an IBEW electrician, but when he worked at Ford (before the plant closing) he was also a member of the UAW. I know electricians who belong to the IBEW but work for the state of Missouri who also belong to the AFSCME. For someone like that, it seems to me that it would be helpful if the mailer would say "AFSCME" so that the recipient would know that "your union" means AFSCME and not IBEW.
This is not a big deal, but it is not very helpful or above board to print the mailer as it is.
May 27, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Inasmuch as it is intended to confuse and deceive, I think it's a bit more of a deal.
Since it's not going to change the outcome, then it's really nothing.
But as an example of the kind of misleading campaign she's run, it's pretty damn good.
May 27, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. It is hard to work up outrage or suchlike at this tactic, but it does leave a bad taste in one's mouth (even if only faintly).
May 27, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
didn't this same thing, or something very close to it happen in Pennsylvania?
May 27, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It did. I thought it was squirrly back then as well. As political sins go, it is far more venial than mortal, but unsavory nonetheless.
May 27, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
May 27, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Tena, please. You seem to forget the mailers sent out in OH and PA with false misleading Republican talking points about garnishing wages of poor rubes if Hillary's health care plan went thru? The false NAFTA mailers with a quote that had been retracted by the source, but Obama ran anyway?
May 27, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except of course that your claims about those mailers are not accurate.
May 27, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which part wasn't true?
May 27, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try all of it.
May 27, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
His NAFTA mailer had a quote that was false. The source it came from retracted it. This makes it false and misleading.
His health care mailer used identical Republican talking points, using the same kitchen table setting of a family worried they wouldn't have money to pay for a mandated health care plan. This makes it false and misleading. And Republican.
May 27, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The quote where Clinton said NAFTA was a 'boon' was what Newsday published.
Newsday corrected it's story after the Clinton campaign complained but was after the mailers went out. Furthermore while the 'boon' was Newsday's summation and not a direct quote, Newsday reviewed Clinton's statements and concluded she supported NAFTA. WHich is factually true. The characterization that she supports NAFTA I think is indisputable." I guess Obama is guilty of not being able to alter space and time.
Obama's mailer says, "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it ... and you pay a penalty if you don't." which is factually accurate. Clinton herself has said that under the her health care plan, she would consider going after the wages of Americans who don't purchase health insurance, whether they can afford it or not.
But scream Republican talking points before to remind us all exactly how she screwed up health care reform back in the early 90s with her own incompetent handling of health care reform, blaming others for her own screw-ups.
May 27, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. That's a great rebuttal, if you're a Republican.
May 27, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, it is a great rebuttal to republican BS, which is why it is in response to yours.
May 27, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoever posted the picture of the horse and buggy with the story about gas prices on the front page deserves a raise.
May 27, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I disagree. That picture is an obvious sign of bias towards McCain and Clinton, and bias against Obama, if you ask me.
May 27, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This made me chuckle. Thanks for that. :-)
May 27, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are welcome.
; )
May 27, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But is McSame pandering enough to the Amish? I mena they should be natural allies since they both come from an era before electricity.
;-)
May 27, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
May 27, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, very nice. Very nice, indeed.
May 27, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be surprised if Indiana or Montana didn't have laws requiring "paid for by..." tags on campaign materials. Anybody know?
May 27, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought this was a news and comment blog, not an extension of barackobama.com. If I want that perspective, I will go there, and trust me, I visit there often to brush up on my talking points....But TPM shouldn't be designed to help Obama get elected, it is one of the few so called "progressive blogs" that gives a relatively fair shake to both sides.
Thanks TPM, I will keep visiting, even if you are a bit short on Obama news.
But don't get me wrong Liam, I love your posts, and appreciate your devotion and quick wit! Just lay off poor old Greg a bit!
May 27, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because there have been so many blog and news entries about Obama here (none) today.
Your comment is like "opposite day" where everything is opposite of what it is in reality.
May 27, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
you talkin to me? Cuz if you are, give me a friggin break, I'm on your side, pal.
May 27, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you, my fellow Obama supporters, think TPM is the enemy here, I think you are mistaken. John McCain and a 3rd Bush term is the enemy. TPM will drop their obsession with Hillary in about a week, when she bows out ungracefully from her Titanic of a campaign.
This site loves the drama like any news organization, and talking about Obama just isn't dramatic or controversial right now. When its just Obama-McCain, get back to me if you still think TPM is biased against Obama.
May 27, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM is supposed to be better and more progressive than other sites. The fact that there's not much about Obama, here, today, at 3 PM EDT, is clear evidence that TPM is, well, not just the same as those other sites, but clearly slipping in terms of its coverage.
There evidently must be a piece about Obama for every piece about Clinton/McCain/GOP/ETC that appears in order for TPM to maintain its progressive blog cred.
And I hope you can understand snark.
May 27, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think TPM's the enemy.
I just think they like Hillary and think she's been mistreated (I don't agree) and sort of kind of think Obama is a fraud.
I think their coverage reflects that -- for example:
i) today's sort of condescending and pedagogical post in how to "fairly" discuss the non-metric of the popular vote;
ii) the complete non-coverage of Hillary's white person comments, which, by any measure was a real story, no matter whose side you're on;
iii) the non-coverage of Bill's assertion this weekend that he has never seen a candidate treated "so disrespectfully,";
iv) the endless flogging of "it's Obama's fault" on the RFK thing (which I defended HRC on); and
iv) the single minded devotion to the non-story of Obama purportedly failing to "take on" FOX, whatever that means or meant.
I imagine I'll get told that this is all crazy bias talk but too bad, that's what I think.
May 27, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, the comments are always funnier when they are in response to the latest crap statement from Lanny Davis or Grandpa Mac.
In any case, I think it's good to be aware of the tactics the other side is trying. So no complaints, Greg. :)
May 27, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Mark Simmons = Matthew Weaver?
May 27, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think so.
May 27, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice catch!
May 27, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not a lying flier like Obama's rove fliers.
May 27, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to include "Obama is a doody-head" with your well thought out and sourced argument.
May 27, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone needs to run against AFSCME President Gerald McEntee at the union's next convention. McEntee has thrown so much money down the Hillary rat-hole that they've gone over $1 million in debt.
If it's dues money (which can be used for membership communication), that is a colossal misuse of resources which will have zero benefit to them.
If it's PAC money, every dollar spent on Hillary is a dollar that won't be available to elect Obama in the general election or to elect the House and Senate candidates needed to enact labor's top priority -- the Employee Free Choice Act.
Absolutely no can one say with a straight face that President Obama won't be at least as good for union members as Hillary would have been. Even within AFSCME this is recognized, as the union's Oregon state council and many other local unions and divisions have endorsed Obama. So what is the gain for AFSCME in continuing to throw money at Hillary?
Clearly, this is a case of a union president who has been in office too long and who has been seduced by the illusion of access to power (as President Bill Clinton gave him) at the expense of what is in his members' best interest.
It's time for Hillary to drop out and it's time for McEntee to go.
May 27, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more week.
May 27, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 27, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally. I mean, what's the point of spending millions of dollars on a primary campaign in which all of the candidates are more or less equally good in terms of how they'll treat union members? Why wouldn't you save it for the general election when the difference is a gaping chasm?
May 27, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
One would think - yes.
The membership cannot be pleased to know that the union is in debt because of this - I wouldn't be.
May 27, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
AFSCME has a strong track record-
-of backing losing candidates.
May 27, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may well be true that McEntee's bitter end approach to Hillary is a reaction to the grief he got for bailing on Howard Dean's campaign so early. It still doesn't justify it, though.
May 27, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, fine. Two questions that should be asked:
1--Why has the explanation changed?
2--Provide the list of the constellation of unions in each jurisdiction that you are using this mailer for.
May 27, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kaine: Clinton likely to drop out next week
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, at 1:22 pm
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/kaine_clinton_likely_to_drop_out_next_week/
Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said he doesn't believe Sen. Hillary Clinton will take her fight for the Democratic presidential nomination all the way to the convention floor.
Kaine said today that it will be obvious Sen. Barack Obama has enough support to win the nomination after the final two primaries next week. He said he expects Clinton to bow out at that time so the Democrats can focus on campaigning against Republican John McCain.
May 27, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lovely.
I was just talking to someone about how badly I want to get started on McLame and get out of this bizarre and acrimonious situation the Clinton's have created.
And I had a feeling yesterday that the remaining SDs were likely to come out and announce sooner rather than later and now we know why Obama's campaign has used June 3 with such finality.
May 27, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the remaining SDs are a bunch of pussies (no offense) and don't want to piss off the Clintons. Once all the primaries are over, they'll endorse the winner - Obama.
One more week. Let's start the countdown.
May 27, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
O I agree with you - they have been pussies. They could have stopped this but you're right - they didn't want to piss the Clintons off.
May 27, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Kaine's mouth to God's ear.
May 27, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.lvrj.com/breaking_news/19286964.html
Excerpt:
May. 27, 2008
Obama talks with Las Vegas family
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama stopped briefly today at the downtown Las Vegas home of Felicitas Rosel and Francisco Cano who are worried that they might lose the home they bought three years ago using an adjustable-rate mortgage.
May 27, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who spent several years in the print industry, I don't buy AFSCME's line about why they didn't list particular unions. Ask any print designer... there are any number of workarounds in which the mailer could have been left blank and the specific union names plugged in later.
Ask yourselves, how do you suppose they put the individual addresses on those flyers?
You mean each flyer has an individual address, yet they can't switch out a couple union names?
LOL...
May 27, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, Lamont. If there's space (and there is) for the individual union member's name and address, there is space to identify the participating union or unions.
You just put in a line as part of the mail run.
What does this repeat chicanery, in state after primary state, remind you of?
Women's Voices Women Vote.
By the way, Greg, you simply did not answer tennisball's very pertinent questions.
TPM readers notice stuff like that.
I am so keen for the pointless distraction that is the Hillary primary campaign to formally end.
Counting the days.
May 27, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
To make myself clear, there is absolutely no reason the line "Brought to you by unions X, Y, Z" cannot appear in the address box when the flyers are being prepared for mailout or other distribution.
The only reason for concealment is deception.
Sorry, but that's the bottom line.
May 27, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama Now Ahead in Electoral Votes Against John McCain Says USAElectionPolls.com
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=48264&cat=5
Washington D.C. 5/27/2008 06:27 PM GMT
USAElectionPolls.com has been archiving the 2008 general election poll numbers for several months and currently has Barack Obama ahead in electoral votes over John McCain.
According to the website, this is the first time they have observed this in 3 months time. Looking at their Ohio matchup polls, John McCain has been ahead in most of those polls over the past couple of months. Survey USA's latest poll has Obama ahead by 9%. Ohio's 20 electoral votes will prove to be key in the 2008 general election as the USAElectionPolls.com electoral predictor is highly dependant on the results of Ohio.
Another state that Obama is doing better in as compared to before is Pennsylvania. Quinnipiac has him ahead by 6% in their latest poll.
The following table is a synopsis of the latest results posted on USAElectionPolls.com.
State #EV Barack Obama John McCain
California 55 47.0 40.0
Pennsylvania 21 45.0 43.0
Ohio 20 48.0 39.0
May 27, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
o w00t!
Thanks for that, liam!
May 27, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your welcome Tena. I hope that posting some actual news about Senator Obama does not poison TPM, since they appear to be allergic to him.
May 27, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like this site better. Obama 293, McCain 245. Guy is a republican and is usually spot on.
http://www.electionprojection.com/
May 27, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, I'd love to have that trucker's job... getting to drive all around the country, delivering these generic mailers AFSCME printed up.
Maybe someday in the future, they'll invent a series of tubes through which digital files can be exchanged between pre-press houses, customized, and printed.
May 27, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 27, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
But then you'd be a Teamster. And the Teamsters support Obama!
May 27, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool!
May 27, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you expect from a government workers' union? Competence? Above-board honesty? This is yet more despicable behavior from Clinton backers. She can't win fairly, so underhandedness is the order of the day.
May 28, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink